“Every single one of us is good at something. Some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it. “

=

William Chapman

—- “I told her once i wasn’t good at anything.

She told me survival is a talent. You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”

=

Clementine von Radics

—

“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.”

=

Ottmer <the futurist>

—

Well. Let me begin by saying, well, being better is better.

Or better said: better is good.

In addition. Being good at something is good.

Those are two basic Life thoughts. Simple thoughts, but kind of important thoughts. Important because they are pervasive throughout civilization, culture, attitudes and certainly drives behavior.

Now. The most basic aspect of this whole thing of people wanting to be really good at something and, I imagine why people want to be passionate about something, is that they have experience with lack of passion. I say that last thought because <here is a Life truth> the reason why we’re not passionate about stuff we’re not really good at is because we aren’t <cannot be> passionate about stuff we suck at.

Here is where it gets a little screwy. Being good at something is a minefield mentally.

Huh? What do you mean <you ask me>??

How many times have you heard some version of the following phrases?

• “Everyone has a special skill!“

• “You just need to practice!“

• “You haven’t tried everything yet!“

• “You better work out what special skill you have and then use it for the rest of your life because if you don’t you’ll live in a dumpster fighting with cats for food!“

That trite advice is fine for people who are good at things, but what if you just suck at everything?

<or at least have sucked at everything you have tried to date>

Well. Here is the good news. It is next to impossible to suck at everything. It is much more likely that “… some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it.”

As a corollary, in reality, it’s impossible to be good at every single thing you try.

Oh. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you suck. It’s all about perspective and how you define whether you’re good at something. For instance, are you basing how bad you are at something on your own standards or are you comparing yourself to others? If it’s the latter then you need to stop and remind yourself that we are all individuals. You’re not inferior or inept, you’re just different <kind of like snowflakes … okay … maybe not>.

Suffice it to say that insecurities and doubts limit your potential <regardless of whether you suck or are actually good> so if you intend to succeed at something you must first get rid of them.

Ah. But here is the curve ball Life throws at you <or is it a screwball??> — while you are figuring out what you are good at a whole shit load of incompetent assholes around you are trying to convince everyone what they are good at <of which they are actually not good at what they think they are>.

Incompetent people don’t know they are incompetent <in other words … they don’t think they suck>.

——

When asked, most individuals will describe themselves as better-than-average in areas such as leadership, social skills, written expression, or just about anything where the individual has an interest.

This tendency of the average person to believe he or she is better-than-average is known as the “above-average effect,” and it flies in the face of logic … by definition, descriptive statistics says that it is impossible absurdly improbable for a majority of people to be above average.

It follows, therefore, that a large number of the self-described “above average” individuals are in fact below average in those areas, and they are simply unaware of their incompetence.

——-

It seems that the reason for this phenomenon is obvious:

– The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone’s skill in that space, including their own.

– When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well.

Anyway. What this means is that the incompetent tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities.

—

“He felt he was himself and did not want to be otherwise. He only wanted to be better than he had been before. “

Leo Tolstoy

—

The Department of Psychology at Cornell University made an effort to determine just how profoundly one mistakenly overestimates one’s own skills in relation to one’s actual abilities.

They made the following predictions before the studies:

– Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.

– Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else’s.

– Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.

Rather than showcase the study and the results let me just say … they were correct in their assumptions.

Look. While I have spent a lot of time talking about incompetence and the incompetent, there is nothing more beautiful than watching competence in action. Especially if they are just good, not great, and have the awareness to build on their good in pursuit of … well … not great … but something better.

—-

“No one is good at everything, but everyone is good at something.”

any after school 1990’s special

—-

“Sucking is the first step to being sorta good at something”

Thorin Klosowski

—

And maybe that is why competence <or being good> is so beautiful to watch … it is the pursuit.

The pursuit? Being good at something mostly means you weren’t as good, or even sucked, at some point. This means the true competent people keep pushing.

Being good at something means no dumb questions, no dumb answers and no low <or stagnant> standards. And that is where I believe the whole concept of ‘being good at something’ should be grounded.

It’s not passion.

And, frankly, it may not even be something that comes easily to you.

It is more about holding yourself to some higher standard.

It is about the desire to keep pushing.

It is about being responsible for not quitting.

—-

“Hold yourself responsible for a higher standard than anybody else expects of you, never excuse yourself.”

Henry Ward Beecher

—–

In the end. Set aside ‘higher standards’ or ‘accepting you are good at something’ … in the end I respect … well … caring.

Giving a shit.

Or maybe call it … ‘nerdy as fuck about something.’

—-

“I respect people who get nerdy as fuck about something they love.”

Leah Raeder

——-

Caring enough about what you do is a good thing … and it makes you good at something.

It’s not passion.

It’s maybe not any real ability.

It’s just about the fact that you care.

By the way. Getting back to the first quote I used.

This also suggests, on those tough days and tough stretches in Life, simple survival is a talent because it means you care about Life.

Uhm. And that is a good thing to be good at.

Care about Life and never, never, apologize for how you choose to survive.

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

—–

Arturo Perez Revarte

==============

Vague sucks.

And, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & affect.

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

Do most people do this work? No. The majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. That is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and … well … more questions. All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

Once again.

This is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

Ah.

I will say that at some point the ‘questions I have about my vague outline’gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways, but let me point out two:

The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide … my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>. Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. Or someone weaves a great narrative to destroy but forgets to offer an alternative.

In other words … everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. But in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. in one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” and, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

Second.

Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees … it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and, yet, not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed. It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because that said … it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is President Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

Anyway.

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then … well … there is conflict.

All that said, while vague sucks there is a reason we do it and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

Life is restless.

Our vague outlines are necessary to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish. I would also point out that if you are frustrated by someone’s vague outlines, the onus is upon you to bold the outline on whatever issue you want them to see so that, well, they can clearly see the outline of what really “is.” Just remember. There is a massive difference between vague and vague outlines.

Salesmen, secretaries, coal miners, beekeepers, sword swallowers, all of us. All the restless hearts of the world, all trying to find a way home.”

—–

Patch Adams

====================

Well. I had all these quotes and I didn’t know what to do with them until I saw the image at the opening of this post: “They say every atom in our bodies was once part of a star. Maybe I’m not leaving maybe I’m going home.”

I have often wondered why many of us are so restless. We seek things, and travel places looking for ‘something’ and dream dreams. This doesn’t mean we don’t enjoy what we have nor does it mean we don’t accept reality. It just means that there is always an undercurrent of change or “what ifs” or “what could be’s” underneath the surface of our Life. At the same time we are sailing through Life seeking some place we can land which we can not only call home, but actually feels like home.

And maybe that is where the line “home is where you hang your hat’ comes into play. In its simplicity it is actually suggesting that it really isn’t your hat that matters it is when you accept that you can be who you are and that ‘who’ is all you can be that you have found home. And while Thérèse was really suggesting that the material world was simply your journey and heaven, or God, is your destination the overall thought is truer than true.

Whether you believe in something bigger than you or simply believe there is something bigger within you, you should seek the stars within you to guide you to it all — not some external place or location which may appear to fulfill some aspect of ‘home.’

Your dreams, wishes and … yes … the starlight to guide you in the darkness of not knowing what to do, where to go and how to get thru whatever it is you are going thru … is all within you.

Your home resides within you.

You are simply looking for a place to … well … place your home that feels right and true. That place is unseen. That place is not really one place <it can actually be many places>.

Here comes the hard part.

Life will not give you any signposts and most of Life will constantly change your direction unseen in the undercurrents of Life.

============

“In the short voyage of a lifetime, we can see the eddies and ripples on the surface, but not the undercurrents changing the main channel of the stream. “

Thomas Mellon

=============

This all suggests you are in control and you are not in control.

Just ponder the fact we often stand upon the deck of our ship admiring the horizon and enjoying the travel & journey only to have some Life undercurrent disrupt our complacency and some version of ‘living Life laziness’ <i.e., if you’re not careful and become actively involved in Life, Life will actively involve itself in your Life>.

This simply reminds us that circumstances beyond our control often disrupt the illusion of what we have, who we are and where we are.

The unseen undercurrent constantly nudges our mind with questions:

What is our purpose?

How can we take control of so many things out of our control?

How do we reconcile the vastness Life offers us … reconcile the bigness that can often appear within reach … and reconcile our desire to be worthy of Life … reconcile it all against the smallness that is us in the roiling sea on which our ship sails?

Will we ever satisfy our dreams for what could be & what we could be?

Meaningful or meaningless?

We struggle with these questions. And all the while we avoid the questions under the guise of “seeking home.’

Ah. Shit.

Suffice it to say, home is not anything physical, it actually resides in the infinite. As a corollary, this would presume if you accept its infiniteness you should be able to see it also has the potential to be infinitely good.

I believe we inherently know this and inherently know that only ‘home’ will truly satisfy us. And that search, that journey, is the satisfaction. I imagine the unfortunate, uncomfortable, truth is the odds are we will never truly find some ‘home’ in which we can live our entire lives.

“Not in the clamor of the crowded street, not in the shouts and applause of the many, but in ourselves, are triumph and defeat.”

–

Longfellow

===============

Success in business is a trickier thing to talk about than you would expect.

In our ‘positive reinforcement world’ in which ‘everyone contributes and should be included’ we give out more gold stars in the business world than a second grade class. I sometimes think we give out so many rewards that no one can truly tell who the ‘best contributors’ <the ones who we used to call our ‘A players’> are.

In this, business is different than sports. Over an entire season your best players in sports become obvious to everyone. In business it is less obvious. It becomes even less obvious when everyone is getting bonuses and rewards. And it can be even less obvious to the employees themselves as even the A players get the rewards behind the scenes which makes the ‘somewhere less than A’ players start thinking … well … they are the success generators.

I sometimes wonder how we arrived at this commoditization of success in business.

Maybe it is an overreaction to a world where finding fault and seeking blame and uncovering less than perfection.

“We live in a world where finding fault in others seems to be the favorite blood sport. It has long been the basis of political campaign strategy. It is the theme of much television programming across the world. It sells newspapers.

Whenever we meet anyone, our first, almost unconscious reaction may be to look for imperfections.”

Henry B. Eyring

Maybe it is our slightly absurd infatuation with ‘everyone contributes’ and ‘all ideas are good & valuable.’

Yeah. Everyone does contribute in a business <or they get fired>. But not everyone contributes equally on all skills. That is why … uhm … we have departments and specialists and people who get hired to do accounting and sales. And, yes, everyone can contribute to success, but some have a larger impact than others. Does that make the ‘lesser impact people’ be less valuable?

Well, no, but their value generates less, or a different type, of an ROI.

But we don’t seem to want to point that out in an organization in our attempt to make everyone feel equally involved in the success. To be clear. If an organization is well run, everyone DOES contribute to success, but every organization has a hierarchy (even if it isn’t mapped out), just as ever team opts to a ‘captain’ even if one is not designated.

As for ideas?

Well, yes, everyone can come up with ideas and anyone can actually come up with a good and useful idea. But we certainly should not confuse that thought <truth> with the belief all ideas are good and that anyone can come up with the idea needed at some particular moment.

Generating ideas on demand is … well … valuable.

Generating ideas as an outcome of doing your job? … well … that is also valuable but of a different value.

Regardless. Managing success in business is tricky.

It is about balancing the truth that people play roles and offer different skills and some of those roles & skills offer different outcomes & values … to the other truth that organizations are like engines where when all the pieces & parts are working well and in tune the engine sings. But, once again, this doesn’t mean all parts & pieces are of equal value. Some sustain the possibility of horsepower and some actually create the horsepower.

Do you need both?

Sure. But maybe the biggest issue about all of this is the democratization of success in business. If you cannot highlight the successes framed relatively then … well … all successes become equal and therefore anyone believes they are as equally skilled & competent & valuable as everyone else.

That, my friends, is a problem in any organization of any significant size.

Do I believe in hierarchy? Well. Yes and no.

No if it is just layers to have layers & not if it doesn’t permit freedom to permit people to maximize what they have to offer.

Yes if it is because you have placed the appropriate skill in the appropriate position in order to maximize all the pieces & parts.

That said.

It seems to me that we would all be better off if we started thinking about the fact that success, and defeat, is not found in the applause or criticism, but rather resides in each and every employee.

It seems to me that if we encourage more of an individual responsibility & pride that the organization will succeed without having to invest a shitload of energy focusing on worrying about how to recognize success. And, yes, the business itself has a responsibility to foster this belief, attitude & behavior by culturally exhibiting this belief, attitude and behavior.

Far too often the senior management bitches about the lack of employee responsibility without looking in the mirror. And maybe it is in that last sentence which generally encapsulates the contradictory aspects impacting how we view success in business.

We desire everyone to win and feel part of the team and ,yet, the American obsession with competition is more often than not brought to Life in business in some type of individual reviews, rewards & responses.

We inherently understand that the pieces & parts are not all equal in skill and output/outcome and, while talking about ‘everybody wins’, we still create an environment to have ‘someone win’ … believing competition brings out the best in everyone.

Managing that contradiction … well … if you don’t manage it well than success of the overall business suffers.

We all know what makes a business successful, or great, is continual improvement … not an “if it aint broke don’t fix it” attitude. Many American companies such as Ford, Alcoa, Starbucks and Harley Davidson practice continual improvement and systems thinking with great success. Deming is the one who developed the business approach of Continual Quality Improvement. It fosters teamwork and overall organizational success versus encouraging organizational success through individual competition.

Frankly, the idea is complicated and tricky. And it goes against America’s natural business DNA and most companies resist embracing the concept fully instead embracing individual competition <under a smokescreen umbrella of ‘everybody wins’>.

In general managing success in business is tricky for a variety of reasons.

We are too fond of quick fixes.

We are too fond of believing competition is necessary to maximize individual behavior.

We are too fond of not wanting to imply someone is better than someone else at something publicly.

We are too fond of chasing organizational management ideas used successfully by someone else <which is often like putting a hexagon peg in a square hole>.

Anyway.

I am not suggesting this is easy. Success is business is tricky. But I talk with a lot of businesses and I will suggest that most businesses haven’t figured it out. Just as sharing authority and leadership without actually losing it is difficult … sharing success without losing the luster of success is also difficult.

Most businesses are trying but they are a work in progress. I do believe the moment “leaders” recognize that triumph & defeat resides within everyone & empower them to be triumphant, empower them to make some ‘defeat’ decisions (and psychologically make them feel safe in making some of those decisions, the more productive, and healthy, the business will be.

For the latter, well, just see the gobs of information and quotes online with regard to “if you aren’t moving forward you are standing still” … “don’t look back or you’ll miss what is in front of you” … “don’t look back you are not going that way” or some fortune cookie wisdom like that <as if no one knows that movement, and progress, is good>. I call this the ‘forward progress theory’ business <I have noted elsewhere Life, like chess, is about facing the entire board and obstacles & opportunities which lie all around you, not just in front of you, & you can move in a variety of directions with progress in mind>.

That said.

With regard to progress, the bravest thing you can do is to not look back. Why do I say ‘brave’? We make it really hard to not look back. Really hard. Day in and day out everything around you pounds on you for ‘what did you learn’ and how are you applying it and ‘if you don’t know learnings from the past how can you be sure that is the right thing to do?” <crap like that>.

Okay. Semi useful thinking crap like that. But what it really means is that anyone truly desiring to move forward, intent on progress, keeps getting dragged back time and again to the past. What, or who, is the main culprit of this almost unhealthy relationship with the past?

“Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to make the same mistakes.”

Christalmighty.“Doomed.”

No wonder people are afraid of some risk or hesitate to move forward keep looking backwards. Doom is never a particularly desirable objective if you care about your career <or anything for that matter>.

The ‘doomed’ aspect <which older business people toss around like confetti in meetings> means we are almost demanded to not only invest energy in the past but, in some cases, encouraged to hold on to past learning with ragged claws. That said … I will go back to the bravery aspect because I could argue the truest bravery, in this sense, resides in two places:

Not looking back once you have decided to move forward.

Not looking back when you purposefully stand still.

Yeah.

First.Move.There are actually times to just go. Go and do. I do not mean ‘go’ as solely leaning on instincts <I call this ‘decision faking by intuition‘>, because research tends to show instincts are less important than experience, but lean on your experience to guide you through the context of your progress. The truth is that the past cannot show you all the shit you need to know as you move forward. It only shows aspects of shit you should be aware of. And, worse, the past has nasty habit of not encouraging you to reflect on the context of all the aspects just the aspects themselves. Therefore history is truly only important in parts and not the whole.

This means you have to grab the scraps of what you need from the past and create a new whole in moving forward. That is where bravery steps up to the plate. More often than not you are creating a new whole … a slightly different version of what was. Yeah. That is different than the past <it s actually something new>. Yeah. Everyone is actually a creator, a discoverer albeit we don’t like to think about that. While this point is a generalization … if you know your shit … once you have decided to go … to move forward … don’t look back. Bravely face the new world ahead.

Yeah.

Second.Stand still. There are actually times to stop. Stand still. Even amidst activity. Even amidst a crowd which seems like it is moving forward <albeit sometimes all you see is the movement>.

Stillness, strategic stillness, is possibly one of the scariest things anyone can ever do. When everyone and everything is moving you feel like you are ding something wrong in standing still. And, yet, by purposefully doing so you may be adding to the progress rather than taking away from it.

Here is what I know about purposefully standing still.

You have to accept the fact you are offering the type of energy that no matter where you are and no matter that you are still & not moving you are actually adding value to the space and time and progress to that which is around you. I can promise you that this takes a version of bravery.

Anyway.

The entire ‘Forward progress Theory’ is difficult. Difficult in the mind <attitudes> and even in practice <behavior>. I could argue that it is so difficult because our natural instinct is to try and use the past to define what the future will look like. That is slightly crazy when you think about it. While the arc of time suggests the future will most likely replicate the past, well, that is the arc and not the details. It’s kind of like discussing strategy versus tactics. The strategy may remain the same or similar, but the tactics will vary in the context of time & situation.

Progress does take some bravery, some courage. Mostly because the future will always contain something you have never seen before or faced before. In other words … it will not be the same as it was.

I don’t think I am particularly brave but I certainly don’t look back once I decide to go … and I have no qualms with standing still amidst movement. I tend to believe it is not bravery but rather experience.

Ah. Experience. Maybe you need to be brave to gain useful experience?

Ok.

That’s another post for another day ……..

===================

“Sometimes people let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say, ‘So what’.

… a longing for something so indefinite as to be indefinable. Love affairs, miseries of life, the way things were, people already dead, those who left and the ocean that tossed them on the shores of a different land – all things born of the soul that can only be felt.

==

Anthony De Sa

———–

“He marveled at the indifference of the world, the way it kept on, despite everything.”

==

Anthony Doerr

————-

Ok. I am fairly sure everyone desires the greater intangible things in life: the things, or thing, you just cannot put words to but you know is out there and you will “know it when you see it or feel it”. Unfortunately, well, the intangible also tends to be elusive.

It is also very very difficult to clearly define or put words to it <hence many people choose to focus on some specific milestone or objective>. I think I would suggest the intangible is elusive because the world is indifferent to our desires. What do I mean? It is relatively uninterested in offering the intangible in tangible form. The world simply tends to fork over tangible crap to us and it is up to us to peel it all back and bask in the intangible good stuff found within.

But that takes time and is more difficult.

Therefore. We tend to seek tangibles. And more tangibles. And then more tangibles. This means that we are almost destined, despite that in our soul we deeply long for something indefinable, to settle for tangible proof that we are showing some progress.

I do not really care what the proof is … just that we settle for it.

What Is Elusive? The definition of “elusive” is:

elusive: evasive, slippery, difficult to find, catch or achieve

Speaking of desiring proof – that is why we often create deadlines. Deadlines are powerful things as we face our longing for the indefinite <and the definite>. More often than not we use the deadline to insure we do not waste too much time on something we are not sure can be easily defined. But think about what a deadline really is.

Today the term is now used, mostly, to refer to “the time by which something must be completed.” In the historical sense a deadline refers to the boundary around a prison which, if prisoners crossed it, they’d be shot by the guards. Wow. Okay. So while deadlines are everywhere in the business world we no longer get shot it does seem like we just get shit when we cross a deadline.

Now. Psychologists have done a boatload of research on the effect of deadlines on people. Invariably the majority of people actually improve performance as a deadline nears. They explain this by something called “the Yerkes-Dodson law.” This law suggests performance increases as arousal <excitement, stress, tension, nervousness> increases. Well. At least up to a point from which performance declines as the person, and senses, are overwhelmed.

Basically this suggests we become more aware of consequences of failing to complete what we want to do as time slips away and act upon that awareness <with some focus because the consequences of not meeting the deadline while may not include being shot certainly includes a load of shit>.

In addition. Deadlines tend to eliminate procrastination mostly because we dislike the unpleasant feeling of consequences of not meeting a deadline. Stick with me because this all has to do with our longing for something indefinite.

Ok. Now comes the next horrible thing that happens as we pursue what we truly long for. We have a deadline in our heads and we encounter something called the planning fallacy. We suck, extraordinarily so, at estimating how much time to allocate for things because our brains, in general, are quite overly optimistic with regard to our own capabilities. Therefore we underestimate time. In addition we do this because our brains have a nasty habit of looking back on past poor time allocation and failed deadlines and blame external causes <and yet the next time the thought will be that this time we will be unencumbered therefore meet our deadline successfully>.

All of this circles back to that ‘arousal’ consequence, which we hate, as it rears its ugly head one more time as our optimistic assumptions crash into the actual reality of the situation. I bring it back to ‘arousal’ because all that painful consequence stuff occursWHEN YOU ARE PURSUING A TANGIBLE GOAL.

The waters get even murkier if you are setting some deadline on how much time you want to spend on pursuing this elusive indefinite thing. But. We are truly optimistic folk. Well. At least some of us are. What one person thinks of as elusive and indefinite another sees hope and opportunity. And depending on where you are in Life your feeling can change. The one consistent steady thing is that at all times there is a longing for something more, some longing for something so indefinite as to be undefinable.

So what can we do? We have to take responsibility for our lives and choices and this indefinite thing. We cannot subvert the longing and suffocate it with the tangible.

To be clear <part 1>. The longing should not dictate our lives and behavior, but it also should not play a role in our lives and actions.

To be clear <part 2>. That isn’t easy. Life can throw a bunch of curve balls and … well … some high hard fastballs. The biggest fastball Life throws at you is what I call “Life comparison shopping.” You shop your life against other lives.

In the good ole days it was called “keeping up with the Joneses” <using one’s neighbors as a standard of comparison for the consumption of material goods>. This sounds silly, but we are human, and it is hard not to notice when your neighbor buys something. But they are not the only standard of comparison. Television shows, magazines, websites, and pretty much anywhere you consume information inundates us with stories about what other people have, wear and do.

Yes. While we know we shouldn’t care mostly because, while we may not articulate it this way, we know conspicuous consumption ubiquitous.

Tangible proof is, well, tangible proof.

The tendency to compare yourself to to other people is fundamental and is going to occur whether or not we intend it. And, yes, in some cases, social comparison is useful. In the absence of objective standards of success, social comparison helps us to evaluate and improve ourselves. And yet, at the same time, sometimes social comparison suggests you are inferior in some aspect <wealth, intelligence, appearance, etc.> which can create some feelings of envy or ‘lesser than.’ Okay. This is where the tangible proof path absolutely frickin’ kills us on this pursuit of something undefinable.

“Lesser than” feelings erode the belief you can ever attain what you long for <I mean your head says “c’mon … if you cannot even be good enough to do that how can you be good enough to attain something you cannot even define .. all you can do is just discuss as something you ‘long for’?”>.

Then we remain on the middle path too long. We start missing out on the dreams. We shelve the longing and inevitably that which is undefinable remains undefined and that which we long for simply becomes an immature pursuit for only those who are dreamers. You justify this decision, and personal behavior, as you walk the middle path by always thinking that eventually you will get around to pursuing this longing … and eventually reach this undefinable thing that will makes you happy.

And then time is gone. And the longing, which is easily dismissed as “shit, I couldn’t even define it anyway”, is still there but the opportunity is gone.

Look. Pursuing something so indefinite as to be indefinable is tough. It is not for the faint of heart. To do so you need to accept that while some results are very tangible others are less so. The secret is to get your head straight from the outset on how ‘performance’ is to be measured then build in the means for measuring activity. I say that because I think the measurement is much more important than setting a deadline.

I mean, well, how can you set a deadline on something you cannot even define? <someone smarter than I would have to figure that out>.

In the end I use this quote:

====

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement.This is how it starts, and, before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat pack. The price is too high.”

Jimmy Reid

=====

Part of being a human being is this inherent longing for “something.” Maybe it is captured in that one word: saudade.

“all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t do the day to day stuff that needs to be done nor am I suggesting that deadlines aren’t quite useful for some day to day shit, but I am suggesting that stuff shouldn’t be done at the sacrifice of our longing for “all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

“The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation. Things you think are separate and different are actually one and the same.We are all one people. But we live as if divided.”

—-

The Last Airbender

====================

So.

It seems like I have been talking with a lot of businesses about differentiation & distinctness. Inevitably the conversation turns to ‘brands, branding & being different.” Three painful B’s. And once that happens inevitably the conversations turns to well known brands (Apple, Amazon, Coke) and viewing all those B’s as a reflection of who & what they are.

There may be some value in that conversation but, here is the deal, unless you have worked only at “glamour brand” companies (think Nike, Coke, McDonalds, etc) you have spent an entire career making your unglamorous brand/company/service not look like a commodity (because pretty much all non-glamour brands all get thrown into some confused perception/awareness cluster).

Oh. By the way.

Even ‘glamour’ brands struggle with differentiation (or not dropping into a functional commodity status) in the b2b market (see Kodak, IBM, etc. as prime examples).

So. Unless you have worked on a glamour brand where people line up to show your logo somewhere on their body you have had to become an expert in the decommoditization business.

—————————————

decommoditization:

Meaningful differentiation is difficult. It is more than features & benefits and it is absolutely more than sheer ‘puffery’ <the claim that we are unique and everyone will beat a path to our door>.

This is truly the challenge of what a really smart guy named Hugh McLeod calls ‘decommoditization.’ Most businesses simply begin from the wrong place. They either seek ‘white space’ in the competitive environment or they believe they are different and set out to tell the world about it.

That is good old school ideology.

But it is bad because it is old thinking.

In today’s more cynical world the mind’s perception map assumes everyone is equal until proven otherwise.

Every day a business is decommoditizing itself or it is slipping down the slippery slope to commodity.

Unless your business is lean hogs, rough rice, natural gas or soybeans <all commodity futures you can invest in> you better have your head focused on decommoditizing.

Bruce McTague

—————————

I know I have on my resume (somewhere) something like “an ability to differentiate in commodity like categories.”

Well. Okay. That said. In today’s internet world and an endless depth of available information at everyone’s fingertips, where everyone is someone’s competition for expectations, almost everyone is in a commodity like category.

On a separate note. Other than a happy few this also summarizes almost the entire b2b category. Everyone fighting themselves out of the ‘lowest cost provider’ status into ‘great value’ (which by the way is ‘brand’) status.

It doesn’t sound glamorous, but I haven’t been in the branding business or the marketing business or whatever strategy business someone wants to call it. I have been in the decommoditization business. In fact. Anyone who says something like that in an interview? Hire them. And hire them now.

Anyway.

My view is in today’s world the moment you stop and rest on the thought you are a ‘brand’ and have added value in someone’s mind (b2b or consumer) you are screwed. Every minute you do nothing you slip backwards toward commodity.

Hugh MacLeod did the cartoon to the right and I laughed when I first saw it because, while I don’t know him personally, he used almost the exact same words I/we used in a new business presentation to a state tourism business in the late 90’s (and then used over and over again with retail and commodity-like businesses).

It’s not just advertising. It’s relevant to all business.

If you own a business or selling anything to anyone, life isn’t top down (brand to product). Life is down to up – product to brand (constantly seeking to insure your head is above the commodity water).

Does that sound defensive? God. I hope not. It’s just smart. It doesn’t mean you aren’t on the offensive and building value and thinking long term, it simply means you have a practical objective – I don’t want to be a damn commodity.

Anyway.

Meaningful differentiation is hard, REALLY hard. I believe businesses would find it easier if they focused less on brand and more on decommoditizing (which inherently is about value creation).

“All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.”

–

John Kenneth Galbraith, U.S. economist, “The Age of Uncertainty”

============

So. Whenever we discuss Elephants in business we are inherently discussing either obliviousness or purposeful ignorance. I am not sure if this is becoming a characteristic of this generation of business leaders or I never noticed it in the last generation of business leaders.

“This” is the inability to deal with the elephant in the room.

Or, even worse, is the ignoring of the “herd of elephants” stalking through an organization.

Yes.

Being a leader of an organization (and size almost becomes irrelevant) is difficult and comes with challenges.

No.

Leaders shouldn’t ignore the elephant in the room or the herds of elephants wandering the hallways.

Elephants? There are so many to choose from I couldn’t list them all. And no leader in their right mind will do an “employee survey” and expect to uncover the elephants that are seemingly walking invisibly through the hallways and offices of their company. Why? No one <employees> trusts internal surveys any more so they typically do not answer honestly <particularly on bad leadership things>.

Anyway. Here are the ‘big 3’ elephants I see leaders kind of having their head up there ass on:

– Senior manager flaws.

For some reason leaders are becoming blind to their semi-peer flaws. I don’t know if it’s the “kinder gentler” management of this generation or if they are just focused on what is being done well because it is one less thing to worry about. I don’t care what it is, but it is elephant numero uno.

Here’s the deal.

People have higher expectations the bigger the title. And they should. A bigger title means a higher standard to live/work by. A leader HAS to set his management team to a higher standard. They cannot be expected to play by the same rules as the rest of the organization. Oddly <despite having been in so many executive meetings I am surprised I haven’t had a natural lobotomy> I have seen more times than not … leaders want to set up a standard of stricter rules for junior people and more flexible standards for senior.

It’s wacky. Senior people are supposed to be role models <at least that is what I thought>.

The trickledown effect if you permit senior people with obvious ‘flaws’ is lack of respect, a belief that management is flawed, and a belief that anyone can be a senior manager (which isn’t true) and, well, confusion on how “they” (employees) can see something that should be obvious to a leader.

– Making specialists generalists.

The way today’s business seems to work is no matter what your responsibility is in your ‘growth’ stages you get promoted (assuming you do well) and get rewarded with a generalist management role.

Look. I am not suggesting specialist cannot become generalist nor am I suggesting that a specialist cannot assume some responsibilities as executive leaders, but I do see organization leaders permitting the title/responsibility role reward based on merit not on ability to do the reward.

And the trickle down to those decisions (beyond the obvious that many just don’t deserve that role and mismanage) is that the organization staff see it and get confused (and join the herd of elephants wandering the hallways). They get confused because it almost appears that ability doesn’t matter to ‘move up.’

– Inability to deal with younger employee dissatisfaction.

Whew. This one is a humdinger these days. This elephant isn’t even invisible and it gets ignored. In fact, many leaders just stare at the elephant and shake their head and go “oh well, there’s that damn elephant but there’s nothing I can do about it.”

It’s crazy. I have written about this before and, yes, I am going to generalize, but this doesn’t have anything to do with “this generation’s work ethic” or “young kids just don’t have the same attitude as we did” (gosh, anyone reading that I would hope feels old if they know they have said it themselves) — this is about leadership.

It’s not about being cool or wearing flip flops to work to show you ‘relate’ to the generation.

In fact, dear leader, they don’t want you to relate … they want you to lead.

A leader doesn’t have to be a ‘giant’ like I have written about before, but they have to be a leader. Employees don’t have to like you (although it helps) they have to respect you. And that crosses any generation at any time with any age employee. Being a leader (and however that particular leader utilizes leadership-like charisma) will overcome 90+% generational issues (flip flops in the office should take care of the rest).

Ok.

Those are just three. But I would imagine the point here is that I tend to see a diminishing ability in leadership to effectively deal with the elephants within their organizations. They are either oblivious, ignore them or accept them. Any of the three are unacceptable.

Ah. The biggest argument I get from senior people? I have other things more important at the moment, I am simply prioritizing.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …. I have a tendency to want to point out that an elephant is, well, an elephant. And they are big.

Deal with it.

Anyway. This is just a trend I seem to be seeing these days.

One last thought (because some of the elephants live outside the office building but come in attached to employees when they come to work every day):

Brian Dyson, CEO of Coca Cola Enterprises from 1959-1994“Imagine life as a game in which you are juggling five balls in the air. You name them – work, family, health, friends, and spirit – and you’re keeping all of these in the air. You will soon understand that work is a rubber ball. If you drop it, it will bounce back. But the other four balls – family, health, friends, and spirit are made of glass. If you drop one of these, they will be irrevocably scuffed, marked, nicked, damaged, or even shattered. They will never be the same. You must understand that and strive for balance in your life.”

Einstein is usually smarter than this. He is slightly off the mark here. Uhm. Well. Maybe he did get it right because he also seemed to have said this.

=============

“Intuition does not come to an unprepared mind.”

—–

Einstein

====================

Okay.

Maybe he was smart <note: tongue in cheek statement>. More likely … Einstein simply never said half the crap that people said he said.

Regardless. Management and decision making by instinct or intuition has reached what I would call a ‘crisis level’ in business today. Let me explain.

First.

Knowledge is good.

Second.

But knowing what to do with it? Let’s call that ‘intuition”, well,that is gooder. Let’s say even excellent. Uhm. But that’s a combo meal. Main entrée is knowledge and the side item is intuition. Don’t like that metaphor?

Knowledge is the science and intuition is the art.

That combination is often called ‘decision making.’

Here is the challenge in today’s business world <and possibly Life>. The gap between what our intuition says and what data & facts actually say is growing wider. What I mean by that is computers and data have the ability to uncover correlation between facts that almost defy common sense or, at minimum, simply make us scratch our heads and say ‘what?” <or “really???”> and that discomfort will inevitably lead to a desire to indulge our intuition <as being better than facts>. Pleasse note I do believe we need to lean in on judgement but shouldn’t confuse it with intuition. When we do it leads to what I call ‘Decision faking.’

Here is where I struggle with intuition.

It’s becoming more and more clear to me that facts are less important to many people. Feelings make decisions, then, and only then, are facts brought in as back up. That’s mixed up. Its the wrong priorities for good decision making.

Yet. It is becoming a common business scenario in which intuition-made-decisions create situations where you end up pulling the trigger first and ask the hard questions later. Yes. This is possibly a general critique of American society, not just business.

Regardless. Think about this.

Thinking and feeling and intuition is actually a business formula. Without doing any research or deep thought … I would suggest great decision making is maybe an 80/20 Pareto rule. 80% thinking & knowledge combined with 20% feeling or intuition creates a great decision. Sure. Statistics and facts can lie. But so can intuition and feeling.

In fact. In business studies the data suggests our instincts & intuition <in business> or ‘going with your gut’ suck. We make bad decisions when based on this. Great thinking combines all the potential lies and sifts thru it all for truth.

Yet. When I look at the business world we seem to have forgotten the difference between thinking and feeling, and worse, we seem to believe feeling is more important.

You feel like you are doing the right thing so you do it.

You feel like it is the best idea so you go do it.

You feel like something is okay because someone told you to do it.

You feel like everything is okay in the end if you can show that why you actually did something was because your feelings were genuine.

You feel like acting on your feelings begets forgiveness for actions and bad decisions.

Well. I feel that’s a bunch of bullhockey.

Intuition is a grown skill. It is not really something you are born with. Well. Maybe better said … people can be born with a good intuition muscle, underdeveloped and awaiting to be strengthened, but no one is born with a well-developed intuition muscle. Therefore you must have the desire to focus on strengthening it. The gym will not come to you, you must go to the gym.

I have also found that business decisions guided by impulse and emotion tend to incorporate a high level of politics and political calculation at exactly the same time.

How will it look?

Who will like it?

Will I benefit?

I imagine taking some time and asking the hard questions won’t alleviate the political aspect, but possibly some time tempers the influence politics have on it. At minimum it shifts the dial slightly away from ‘individual benefit ‘ politics intuition to more ‘group benefit’ intuition.

The debate in business is always on which is better:

to rely on intuition <feeling>, or

rely on deliberate thinking while making decisions.

The fact is in some cases it’s better to rely on feeling and in some on deliberate thinking and the trick is to know which to choose when. But in either case you are using both simply relying on one more than other at the end.Intuition should open us to thought not define the thought. Or maybe it could be used a deterrent to avoid things.

Regardless. You should always value what your head & gut are telling you. But it’s the combination, knowledge and intuition, which reaps the highest returns.

Here is what I feel <pun intended>.

We need to defend decision making made through knowledge and thinking.

Why?

Because true thinking is innocent. The deck is stacked against it but in its naiveté it believes if it simply does the right thing <be itself> it will win.

Truth believes if it remains good and just goes out and attend meetings, go to schools, sit down at the kitchen table, go to church and not give a shit about politics and political correctness and just live their lives … well … it will all work out. Truth will win.

Well. Not so much. It won’t.

Thinking needs to be protected. It needs to be protected from intuition as the way to do things. Or maybe we just need to protect ourselves in business from ‘decision by feelings is more important’ type attitudes.

This is not as an easy thing to do nor am I saying it flippantly.

We battle common sense <because sometimes it really doesn’t make sense>.

We battle real knowledge and data <because sometimes it doesn’t look like it makes sense>.

We battle ourselves <we don’t really know what we want>.

================

“Ours is a world where people don’t know what they want and are willing to go through hell to get it.”

Don Marquis

==================

Well. We do know what we want. We want our decisions to ‘feel right’ when we make them and sometimes it seems like we are willing to go thru hell to feel that way.

Here is the point about facts and thinking. We have gobs of theories we espouse in business hallways almost ad nausea but the truth is if you have enough facts the correlations are there <if you look and think>.

Even if the correlations don’t seem to make sense, or even meets common sense, the knowledge is there to be plucked from the information available. The difficulty is that, well, two things I imagine

<1> We are constantly bombarded by information therefore we seem to seek refuge in intuition clinging to some ‘gut feeling’ that seem to make the cluttered world of information available clear, and

<2> we like to make hasty decisions under the guise of ‘we cant waste our time overthinking this.’

The trouble is that our gut is infamously consistent in that it is often biased by stereotypes and generalizations and, frankly, experiences <good and bad … or ‘quantity of’ versus ‘lack of’>.

I say that because while some young people may have good natural instincts they will inevitably have great instincts when older if they hone it through experience. The corollary to that is some older more experienced business people will have great instincts and absolutely better instincts than a younger less experienced instinct muscle.

I’m not suggesting you should ignore intuition. Just that real information and real thinking and the rigor that comes along with the ‘real’ versus instinctual ‘feelings’ is first & foremost the key to great decision making.

In other words. If you make intuition your main criteria to making a decision, you are simply decision faking.

Science is not a bunch of facts. Scientists are not people trying to be prescriptive or authoritative.

Science is simply the word we use to describe a method of organizing our curiosity. It’s easier, at a dinner party, to say ”science” than to say ”the incremental acquisition of understanding through observation, humbled by an acute awareness of our tendency towards bias”.

Douglas Adams said: “I’d take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.”

Science is not the opposite of art, nor the opposite of spirituality – whatever that is – and you don’t have to deny scientific knowledge in order to make beautiful things.

–

Tim Minchin

================

“I could make a better decision than that stupid one.”

—

said by anyone who thinks they are smarter than a leader

=============

Whew. Twitter reminds me day in and day out how effective the incompetent are at marketing ‘competence’. For the less than discerning eye the incompetent can look quite competent, if not almost achieve an expert perception status. It is becoming really hard, as in REALLY hard, to explain your skill competence in superior or even ‘better than’ ways these days. I clearly and unequivocally believe we are now officially in the decommoditization era. No matter your resume, no matter your experience, no matter your education or anything you have done you have to assume you are a commodity in the eyes of … well … everyone.

Oddly this is even more a truth when you step out of your own circle of truly competitively skilled compatriots <where everyone is equal – a version of commodity – until proven otherwise>.

Ok. I admit. I made up that word ‘expertology.’ Today I take it a step farther under the title of “the commoditization of competency.”What I mean by that is competency and having qualifications is becoming meaningless to everyone except hiring agents and recruiters.

In fact. Let’s just admit it <insert a deep sigh here>, competency, skill & qualifications have attained a commodity status. Sure. We put high falutin’ titles on resumes and highlight success stories and results we have achieved, but inevitably once in a job everyone on the outside looking in views you as a peer – regardless of your skill and title.

This is disheartening … yeah … disheartening …I mean, c’mon, how could it not? … how could the undervaluing, if not complete disregard, of experience and proven skills not be disheartening?

Even worse … it is crazy. As in crazy dangerous.

Look. I don’t care what experience you have, what qualifications you have and what title you have … you are human. That means you will have some successes and some failures. In today’s critical world this means even some of the successes could be viewed as ‘not as good as it should have been’ and the failures could be viewed as “worse than they should have been.” Therefore, because people not actually asociated with whatever is being discussed they view each action, success or failure, as mutually exclusive and without some context, well, people inevitably lose confidence and trust in the leaders decisions, and competency, as decisions & actions get parsed.

This gets challenging because competency, in and of itself, is about the lowest bar one can meet. It most likely suggests someone can carry out the requirements of a specific task. Sure. It may be better than able or capable, which implies that it is possible someone may actually be able to carry out the task, but it is also not ‘qualified’ … which stresses the possession of desired skills nor does it ratchet up to anything higher unless it gets attached to fit, efficient or even good. I say all that because if you commoditize competency, and it is already perceived as ‘the lowest good bar for the responsibility’ then you have dumbed down the concept of what is actually needed to a place in which it appears that anyone could almost do it.

That is crazy.

While I am not suggesting that we view those with the best qualifications and competencies as ‘the few who are chosen and everyone else is a failure and deserves to be forgotten’, I will suggest that leaders mostly get chosen because fewer people can actually do what they do – and do it well on top of that.

I get that people are sick of experts. But that is misguided thinking because experts are experts for a reason. But, maybe worse, people are sick of thinking that people can actually do something they cannot do or make decisions they cannot make. The absurd overarching view becomes “a decision is a decision and anyone with common sense can make it.”

That is absurd. And, yet, that perception creates a reality in which those who truly have superior competence and excellent qualifications are treated to the unending joy of explaining why that doesn’t translate into a commodity. This all gets compounded by the fact that … well … this gets even more absurd … because the hiring process is rigorous and managed expertly … it becomes viewed as biased and rigged <therefore the true qualifications get ignored because outside people just think they did not matter in the hiring process>.

All this to say that we have a competency crisis at hand.

If qualifications do not matter … if experience does not matter … if everything you have done is second guessed to a point of … well … nothing meaningful, than anyone and everyone is competent enough to maybe not do any job but certainly able to make the same decisions anyone else can make.

Reread that last bolded grouping of words. If that doesn’t send a shiver down your spine I do not know what will.

Look. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion. And even the guy at the corner of the bar can find the right decision on occasion.

All I know is that I have been thinking about this for quite some time and have been quite concerned about how society is commoditizing competency. But it all really hit home when I realized an obviously unqualified presidenial candidate was going to be placed in a position where, more than character, competency matters.

Trump embodies this crisis of competency.

As I mentioned to a friend of mine … yes, the Trump choice is partially a fuck you to politicians. But what YOU are missing is that most people will only say fuck you to this extent if they actually feel like there is a competency safety net. And that is where we as a society are fucking ourselves. We have reached this absurd point where we see ‘competency’ as a commodity. I wrote about it in a post I called ‘corner of the bar wisdom’ but if the majority of the rural population is sitting in some bar or barbershop truly believing that they could do the job as well as someone who has the necessary skills & competency … well … then you become willing to overlook real qualifications for a job and choose someone based on things other than qualifications.

This is an unsettling dangerous issue.

In this case it becomes doubly dangerous for society because in an ever increasing multicultural and gender equal environment … older white men are driving this attitude. This just feeds back into an archaic way of conducting business and guiding society. Therefore, on the dangerous side of his equation, a competent ‘win any way you can’ person is equal to a competent ‘how you win matters’ person.

Look. This isn’t necessarily about Trump he simply embodies the issue at hand. This is more about how we are dangerously commoditizing competency and skills which ignores the truth that, like it or not, qualified people are better skilled and better informed. To be clear … that does not necessarily follow that their judgement will always be correct. But that doesn’t translate into them not being skilled or informed or competent.

We far too often shortchange the influence and ability to shape events beyond the more obvious transactional moment. And, yes, that is where competency gets screwed. Competency can be nitpicked to death through linear evaluation, and value assessment, rather than a more complex evaluation of larger affect.

In addition, if my competency were solely judged by some event and decision I made 6 years ago, it ignores the fact that there is no doubt I am more confident in the assessments I make today. I can see beyond the horizon faster than I used to. I think it was Obama who said “the map isn’t always the territory, and you have to kind of walk through it to get a feel for it.” You get a better feel for unintended consequences and consequences in general. And that is where true competency resides … not in the actual moment but also in the aftermath and consequences.

Here is what I know about less-than-competent less-than-qualified decision makers — they have a nasty habit of selecting a path to a target and then to use whatever information they have to persuade others to not obstruct the path they have already decided to walk. This means:

<1> they really aren’t that interested in real ‘truth’ but rather fall back on ‘common sense’ <without the experience and skills and qualifications to insure the common sense is really something that makes sense> and,

<2> they use what I consider ‘pillar logic’, i.e., they stack up what they need under the decision to raise it up … versus the more solid ‘pyramid logic’ which actually creates a foundation from which the decision points up to.

But you know what? While the competency crisis is aggravating I believe the greatest danger of commoditizing competence and qualifications is the fact that it ignores the downside — recklessness, ignorance and incompetence.

Yes. Even a commodity has a downside. Let’s call it the ugly underbelly. Maybe even call it the ‘dangerous foundation of pillar thinking.’ Yeah. a three legged stool is solid … uhm .. until one leg is broken.

Less than competent leaders like three legged stools.

Competent leaders like concrete foundations.

Uhm. That summarizes the risk & recklessness & ignorance argument almost better than anything else I have said.

Anyway. I get concerned we are commoditizing competency. It has some unseemly repercussions and even some dangerous repercussions.

I don’t mind being in the decommoditization business with regard to my own competency but , in general, it seems like it puts an undue onus on experts and the people who really do know their shit to be better at articulating competency than the asshats who have the ‘gift of gab’ and don’t know their shit.